Verify a decision
Every moderation decision on AVOID.NET is anchored to the Solana blockchain. You don't have to trust us — you can verify cryptographically that we committed to a verdict at a specific moment and have not rewritten it.
How verification works
- We commit. When a moderator accepts/rejects a submission, we serialize the decision into deterministic UTF-8 bytes (
payload_canonical_string), hash it with SHA-256, encode the digest as base58, and write it to Solana inside an SPL Memo v2 transaction. - We store the bytes. The exact bytes we hashed are stored alongside the decision in our database. Anyone can read them and recompute the hash in any language.
- You compare three values. Database hash, your independently-recomputed hash, and the hash inside the on-chain memo. If all three match, the decision is authentic and timestamped.
The on-chain memo format is
AVOID.NET|v1|h:<b58-sha256>|d:<id>|t:<iso>Find a signature on any investigation page's decision log, or run python -m src.verify_decision --signature <sig> for a CLI check.
Decision
review_revise · Rugproof (Solana Launchpad)
- Sequence
- #3
- Score
- 8 → 0 (-10)
- Cluster
- mainnet-beta
- Slot
- 443506552
- Off-chain at
- 2026-08-10T14:54:05.653Z
- Anchored at
- —
- Block time
- —
Independent verification
- 1. Database (off-chain)
- BkpmaVv9upzmj3YECh9EKTJJvyt1u6vEZdfVjYmCp63T
- 2. Recomputed (your browser)
- computing…
- 3. On-chain (Solana memo)
- fetching…
Canonical bytes hashed (1362 chars)
{"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-08-10T14:54:05.408Z","decision":"review_revise","investigation_id":"145805ea-a0b6-49f1-91ec-717ba73625c0","new_score":0,"page_slug":"rugproof-solana-launchpad","prev_score":8,"reason":"The page's central allegation - Bubblemaps' July 2025 finding that Rugproof's creator wallet distributed SOL to 162 wallets that acquired 50% of token supply at launch - is fully corroborated across ten of twelve reviewed claims, with zero claims outright disputed (claim_findings[0]-[6], [8]-[11]). Two issues keep this from a clean approval: claim_findings[7] attributes a specific founder detail ('Chris,' a 30-day build timeline) to three cited sources that, on independent re-check, do not contain that detail - a citation-attribution error rather than a factual dispute. Separately, the reviewer's coverage_gaps flags a high-priority gap: the page's narrative stops at the July 29, 2025 reporting cycle and does not disclose the token's subsequent price collapse or the apparent existence of a 'RugProof V2' relaunch, which matters given the page's evergreen framing. Neither issue undermines the core allegation, but both warrant a revision pass before the page is treated as fully current.","score_delta":-10,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}